I’m not sure exactly what you’re driving at. How do you define intelligence? Are you asking 1) how humans became so intelligent when we evolved from relatively unintelligent animals, are you 2) asking how animals evolved intelligence when the very first life forms had none, or are you merely asking 3) how life came from non-life?
Both 2 and 3!
First, I want to make clear that evolution only refers to the development of life after it began. So even if it were impossible for life to develop without God, this would not be any evidence against evolution.
**How did life begin? I need scientific proof that the origin of life came from nothing, just as you need proof of God. The key word is evidence. You have none. You simply put your trust and faith in scientific theory; if you didn’t, you would simply say: I believe in nothing, at least until factual and undeniable evidence (such as the world is round) - presents itself. **
Scientists do not currently know exactly what caused life to first form.
**So, science, thus far, is useless regarding the origin /cause of life. **
They have a number of different theories of what happened, but we do not know which is correct.
**So, regarding the cause of life, science is in the same boat as religion!
**
One problem is that we don’t know exactly what the first living cell looked like. The further back you go in the history of life, the less we know (just like the further back in recorded history you go, the less we know). Unfortunately, we do not have fossils of these original single-celled organisms, so we may never be able to definitively say what the first single celled organism was and how it came about.
Agreed!
The mere lack of perfect knowledge is no proof of God.
**Is it proof that there is no God?
**
Science is constantly learning new things about the world, and there are still some things left to be discovered. If you wanted to argue that it would be impossible for life to come about without God, you would have to present an argument for why this would be impossible.
**If you can explain to me how life can come from nothing, I will concede that the universe is a product of nothing. I will concede that life can come about without God. Until then, I have no reason to reject God.
**
Even advocates of intelligent design acknowledge that it is possible; they merely say that the odds of it happening randomly are extraordinarily low.
**ID concedes that something could have come from nothing? That doesn’t sound very intelligent, on the part of ID scientists.
**
But there are significant problems with the odds they give to the formation of life. They typically measure the probability of life coming about in one place at one time.
**So, you embrace these theories, but reject theories that support the existence of God? Why not just reject all theories until adequate proof is provided?
**
They get a number that would make it very unlikely that life would have evolved in the lifetime of the earth and use this as evidence against evolution. However, there was not just one microscopic spot in the oceans where life could have arisen.
**Where did the ocean, which cocooned the formation of life, as you suggest, come from?
**
Imagine dividing the ocean up into cell sized locations (and early cells were likely far smaller than most modern ones) and think about the enormous number of places that life could have evolved.
**I certainly will when you tell me where these early cells came from…how life evolved from nothing.
**
These calculations often make the false assumption that the first life must have been as complex as current cells.
**I agree; that is a false assumption. Before we can determine that these cells were complex or not, we must determine where they came from, and how.
**
So they assume that 400 proteins are needed, when the actual number is probably a lot less (
pnas.org/content/95/12/6854.full). When factoring in these and other problems, the odds become far better. So we don’t have all the details on the origin of life, but we have no reason to think that it couldn’t have come about naturally.
**Science has no reason to think that it could have come about naturally. Without divine intervention, or a scientific breakthrough, we will be, forever deadlocked.
Atheist, the theory of evolution is unprovable; the idea that God exists is unprovable. Why embrace one and reject the other? Why not reject both until one or both are provable?
The first law of Thermodynamics helps us realize that all this staggering amount of potential energy, stored in the mass of the universe came from some other source. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, within this closed system we call the natural universe.…it can only change forms. Like burning a log in the fireplace.The log is gone but its energy has changed form and some has been released in the form of heat. But, what was once the log still exists…just in different forms. So, ALL the physical mass in the universe, all the potential energy stored in that mass, within the universe, had a beginning, just as the log did. Energy, such as the energy in the log, can change but it could not have been created or destroyed, within the universe. Or, is it your belief that some unknown entity/impetus within this closed system, triggered the big bang? If you say: the universe is eternal, requiring no catalyst, please explain! **
I am just questioning your line of thinking.